Jaswinder Singh v. State Of Haryana
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 17.02.2021 Crl.Misc.No. M-39776 of 2020 Jaswinder Singh
...Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana
...Respondent
Crl.Misc.No. M-41019 of 2020 Gulab Singh
...Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana
...Respondent
Crl.Misc.No. M-41115 of 2020 Sajjan Kumar
...Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana
...Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMOL RATTAN SINGH
Present:
Mr. Namit Khurana, Advocate and Mr. Gurinder Singh Goraya, Advocate for the petitioners.
Mr. Surender Singh, AAG, Haryana.
Mr. Mandeep Nehra, Advocate, for the complainant. ***** AMOL RATTAN SINGH, J. (Oral)
" # $ % "
&'( )
*+
% #
( ,
- !" .
!!
" " # $ + /) / *
'% # 0012 # "
# "
3
0% 2
2
+$+ . !
5
!
4
4 "
4
!
3
!!
4
,#% ( "
* 5
4
" "
5"
45" 7 8
4
"
4 9 :
3"
*
,#% ( - !" .
4
5
4
/ ) 4
!!
3
)+0 2 ;" (4 7 8
!
4
4
<4 2 ;" (
3
6 4
2 ;" (/
6
5"
! "
'
"
68(7 8 0 2 ;" ( 4
4"
4 9
68(6 0 2 ;" ( 5" 4
4
!
"
#" - !" .
4
4
7 8
6
2 ;"
( (/4
,#%
'
#" - !" .
, > <
#
<
"!! " 25" 3
"
"
# 7"!
"
4
2
? 3
,#% 4
"
#" - !" .
4
4
4
0
6 @ <
( " !
! 6 " 4 5"
9
!
"!
#
"
$ % & &%
'
" (
) ( *+ ' , * -
.
* / 3"
,
<
4
!
4
#"
3
!
4
6 @ <
( "
4 :!"
!
!
#2<
!
#,<!
;!"!
/!!
!
!
!!
! /!!
!"
!
!
!
A? 5" 7
45"
"
4
!
!
!
<
!
6 )+ 3
5"
4 9 ,
012
!
& 3
-
,
4
#
&
$
5%61 )
" (
) ( * + '
/ , * 7
.
*3 / '
07 8 3
4 !
5"
4
!
B"
5"
" "
#
"
"!
"
4
#" '
"
&'( 4
>"
# C
4 4 # 6 0 >"
# /) 4
!
!
4 0"
" ! " !
" "
!
D
!03 !
7 8
6 '
"
4 !
!
"
6
!4
"
"
4 " !
5"
4
"
#
"
!
6
5"
!
4
# #
5"
4" 4
" "
)
!
! 3"
&'( !
" "
'%
"
" # 00 2 +$+ 3"
4
"
#
!
"!
!
"
"
"
"!
"
"
0# 7"!
$
!" "!
"
"
4
"
# 7"!
# "
4"
" "
"
!
!
"
!
4 "
!
# 7"!
!
!
"
!
4
!
<
"
# 7"!
4
! 0 *
"
4
!
"
$
* 3
*
# 7"!
!
"
4 9 :8
"
"!
4 "
4 ""
# "
"
&'(
"
"
@
"!
+
E! " 5"
!
&'( !
0
4
68(
2 ;" %4
!
+ + < " "!
"
5"
E!
E
5" "
"
6 < " "!
5"
E! "
&'(4
* . ! #
" #"
,2> <
" 25" + '
4
5
4 / "
! 5 "
"
'
= 6
<
!
4
# $0 % ? 3
$ 4
0 9 : 2
!
#
"
"!
4
4 5"
! 4
#" - !"
5"
!
"
"
="
6 > 4
5" 4
$
4 (6$ +
!
"
"!
!
4
6E 8 C"
"
" 5"
"!
!
4
"
4
(66 )
#
"
"!
"
5
!
!! 3
5"
!
5"
"
!!
4 4" !
"
!
"
# 7"!
"
?
Thus, obviously this court had admitted Sachin Kumar to bail on the ground that at that stage it had been stated that the injuries received by the injured were simple injuries, whereas with the entire sequence of events thereafter having been described in detail to this court (with the injuries eventually given in detailed by the Civil Surgeon). In my opinion, therefore, the present petitioners are not entitled to the concession of anticipatory bail, even presuming that this court erred in the case of Sachin Kumar and possibly should have gone deeper into the matter at that stage itself, as was done in the case of these petitions subsequently. Hat that been so, he also may not have been admitted to bail. But be that as it may, because I may have erred once, does not mean that the same mistake has to be perpetuated, looking at the nature of the injuries now detailed in the affidavit of the Civil Surgeon. Consequently, these being petitions seeking anticipatory bail to the petitioners, I do not think that they are entitled to that concession any
+ further than they have already enjoyed it, and hence these petitions are dismissed, with the interim orders passed in their favour vacated. However, nothing stated at any stage in the orders passed in these petitions would affect the merits of the case, which would naturally proceed as per the evidence gathered and thereafter led before the trial court (if it comes to that stage). Further, if the petitioners are arrested and they seek to be admitted to bail under the provisions of Section 439 of the Cr.P.C., such petition would be considered on its own merits. A copy of this order be placed on the file of the other connected matters too.
17.02.2021 (AMOL RATTAN SINGH) vcgarg JUDGE